Who´d make 49 - 0 in the 50s ?

There is absolute no basis ancient overweight ancient Louis would beat them.
Not just against Rocky, he looked like trash against Charles as well .
I didn´t watch fights of Tangstad lately, he beat some guys like a young 10-1 Douglas, Bugner and Evangelista. With Conney its a question of how much this 31 y old guy had left. I´d say his was prob some tad better than against Foreman. Some years earlier he knocks ancient Louis out cold. After that 5 years, he prob still could hit.
I don´t see Charles beating him more decisively than Spinks did, and wouldn´t bet on anyone in a "louis ghost vs 31y old Cooney affair".

Spinks beat a 6`6" SHW, uncrowned an ATG Larry Holmes and fought him to a draw in another meating. Plus he beat fantastic LHWs, who got frames way bigger than 175. Charles lost to what directly prior to Rocky? Layne, Valdes and Johnson. I guess they are much better than Tangstad and a 6'6" SHW as well, he? Like Walcott, these guys just collected losses. Spinks was 11 years undefeated until he fought the badest man out there.
Thats way enough to get a shot for a 49-0 in the Light Heawyweight - Cruiserweight devision.

What about David Haye? Who is gonna stop him here?

 

Sure, so did Tangstad. With Cooney, its very hard to say how good he still was in 87. My personal opinion is he was way underrated until 82, have to acckn. this. Details might be seen in the Spinks fight.

The problem I have with Charles and Walcott: These guys mixed up way to much losses with these 2nd raters. Spinks was all about winning. Stepping up to the uncrowned HW champ and winning again. 2nd fight with Holmes was very close. Then at least beat another 2 true HWs. What he missed was fighting a guy like Tucker. But he just didn´t mix up losses like Charles and Walcott did.
There is just no rational basis for me to make those 2 way favorite against him.

I recognize the point that he´d did not show 49 fights in his resume. On the other hand, the early guys Rocky fought were amateur level, boxers Spinks could fight more frequently.

Yes I know that early loss of Haye. Apart from that, this guy would be a shark in the 50s era.

 

Weaver collected alot of these losses early and stepped up. Btw, I don´t think Weaver was that good in general. Apart from Smith first fight and Frazier(who some say he won), he just lost to title holders (Holmes, Tubbs, Witherspoon and Tyson). So thats prob only THE FIRST fight and title holders!
The difference with Weaver and Charles/Walcott is, that losses were directly around the time they fought Rocky and Louis. Smith was dangerous, but could be outboxed by good moving fighters.

 

Spinks is bad choice for you because "its just than only win" (I disagree with) and Haye because of that only loss? As I said, you don´t need 45 fights to go 49-0 in an era with pure amateurs for the first half fights and Don Cockell making a challanger.
All of that just looks to me like another level of competetion compared to the 2000s and 80s. Doesn´t it?
And all of that excludes the difference in weightclass yet as well.

Apart from that one loss Haye has, who of that 49 do you see beating him?
I also mentioned Herbie Hide. Any Bowes or Vitalis in that 49?